R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3379, 6 December 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.-TMJPvSDAY.;'' (Before Colonel Robei'ts.'R.M.)'' Win Vile and wife y T. F, Brenchley, claim M 17s for milk supplied, Judgment was given for £2 4s lOd aud,costs. ~,.....'.

R.MeiuF.D. Polling, olaira .£2 8s 10(1. Mr Beard for plaintiff, and MrPownall for defendant, on whose bohalf notice'of bankruptcy was filed. Mr. Beard contended that a3 Pelling had omitted to include Allen in his list of creditors and had not inserted the debt in his schedule he was not relieved from his liability. , Mr Pownall called W. Sellar, Deputy-Official Assignee, who produced proof of debt from Allen in the estate of F.D. Polling. Mr Beard maintained that his client having proved against jho estate did not relieve the bankrupt from his liability if he omitted the creditor from his schedule. Judgment was reserved,

A HOUSE DISPUTE.' Alfred Percy vA. \V. Kenall. Mr Beard for'plaintiff, Mr Pownall for defendant. Plaintiff sued for the recovery of a horse or its valtie, £2O. Ho also claimod £lO 'damages. Plaintiff swore that defendant requested him to lend him his horse in September, 1887. In accordance with the request he sent the horse up by his brother a day or two afterwards ; that defendant stated he only required it temporarily until he could get another quiet horse; to run hjs break, and that the defendant was to lend him another horse to take its place, Defendant lent him tho said horso, but about three weeks afterwards Mrß Dorsett went and claimed the horse as hers, and took it away, After defendant had had the horse for a oonple of years plaintiff thought he had sufficient time in which to secure a quiet horse for his brake, and he wont to defendant's alid'asked him to return the one borrowed, The

defendant told him to send his father to him, hut subsequently told him he could take his horse. Plaintiff then went to defendant's servant to get the horse, which was refused until defendant gave a. written order for it to be given up. Plaintiff applied to defendant for the written order, when he was informed he would send the horse over in the morning. > The morrow came in due course, but llio horse did not.. Plaintiff then again waited on the defendant for the ■ librae. Defendant locked himsolf in his house, but after a while conde-

scended to talk to the plaintif through the window, ; Plaintiff agaii aslierl for tho horse,jvliich demani was met by a threat from defendan

to chuck him into his' mill creek. This the plaintiff had no objeciion to, but asked the defendant to rto it tn propii ptrsom. Defendant, however, declined to do this, and remained within the security, of his castle. Finding the defendant would not return tho horse, plaintiff resorted to law. .

■ Mr Pownall endeavoured to show in cross-examination that there were disputed accounts between the plaintiff's father and mother and the defendant, and stated they owed defendant a large sum of uionoy, ! Mr Beardobjected to t!»accqunts being gone into, as they, were irrevelentto the matter, and stated that instead of plaintiff's father and mother owing defendant a large sum of money, the boot was oii the other leg, and that Mr and Mrs Percy had'for months past been vainly endeavouring to get a statement! of accounts from defendant.

Joseph Percy gave evidence as to the delivery of the horse on his brother's account, and Bertram Morrison as to tho demand for the return of the horse, and tho defendant's refusal'

Ml' Pownall, ou behalf of defendant, said ho would show that no arrangement had been made with regard to the horse between plaintiff and defendant, but that it was made betwcon Mrs Percy and defendant. The defendant, on being sworn, commenced to enter into a long rambling statement, as ho put it for the enlightenment of the Court, as to accounts betwcon himself and Mr and Mrs Percy, but Mr Beard objected to this as being irrelevant, and the Court upheld the objection, to the evidontdisappointinont oftho witnoss, Defendant staled he had made no arrangements about tho horse with the plaintiff, but that the arrangements had boen made with Mrs Percy. Witness grimly suggested that the horse was no good.' They called him "Tho Attorney." Tho Court, however, behoved the version of the plaintiff and his witnesses, and orderod the immediate roturn of the horse to the plaintiff or its value £2O. Defendant was also ordered to pay costs £3 13s Cd.

FRIDAY. , RAILWAY IIV-LAWS, William Vile pleaded guilty to a charge of allowing his horse to wander on the railway reserve and was mulcted in a penalty of ss.